This paper explores the expression of certainty in a set of high- and low-rated Geography argumentative essays. Using one aspect of Hunston’s (1989, 2000) concept of the evaluation of status, the paper compares the statement types used to construe the writer’s expression of certainty in the construction of arguments. Drawing on the framework, linguistic expressions that use different statement types are presented in the light of their rhetorical functions to illustrate their role in the development of arguments. Generally, high-rated script writers make more frequent use of particular statement types, including a type of factual statement, interpretation-support and interpretation-mean statements. The latter two categories are used to reinforce the importance of evidence provided in an argument. Implications for the teaching of certain statement types and their linguistic expressions are also discussed.
BartonEL (1993) Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English5(7): 745–69.
2.
BiberDFineganE (1989) Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
3.
Burrough-BoenischJ (2005) NS and NNS scientists’ amendments of Dutch scientific English and their impact on hedging. English for Specific Purposes24(1): 25–39.
4.
CallaghanMRotheryJ (1988) Teaching factual writing: a genre-based approach. Report of the Disadvantaged Schools Program Literacy Project. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.
5.
ChafeWL (1986) Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In: ChafeWLNicholsJ (eds) Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 261–72.
6.
ChangPCSchleppegrellM (2011) Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes10(3): 140–51.
7.
CharlesM (2003) ‘This mystery…’ a corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes2(4): 313–26.
8.
CharlesM (2006) The construction of stance in reporting clauses: a cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics27(3): 492–581.
9.
CoffinC (2002) The voices of history: theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text22: 503–28.
10.
CoatesJ (1987) Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110–31.
11.
ConradSBiberD (2000) Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In: HunstonSThompsonG (eds) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 56–73.
12.
CrismoreAMarkkanenRSteffensenMS (1993) Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication10(1): 39–71.
13.
CromptonP (1997) Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes16(4): 271–87.
14.
FlowerdewJForestRW (2009) Schematic-structure and lexicogrammatical realization in corpus-based genre analysis: the case of research in PhD literature review. In: CharlesMPecorariDHunstonS (eds) Academic Writing: at the Interface of Corpus and Discourse. New York: Continuum, 15–37.
15.
GranvilleSDisonL (2005) Thinking about thinking: integrating self-reflection into an academic literacy course. Journal of English for Academic Purposes4: 99–118.
16.
HallidayM (1970) Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language6: 322–61.
17.
HolmesJ (1982) Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal13(2): 9–28.
18.
HoodS (2006) The persuasive power of prosodies: radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes5: 37–49.
19.
HoodS (2007) Arguing in and across disciplinary boundaries: legitimizing strategies in applied linguistics and cultural studies. In: McCabeAO’DonnellMWhittakerR (eds) Advances in Language and Education. London: Continuum Studies in Linguistics, 185–20.
20.
HunstonS (1989) Evaluation in experimental research articles. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK.
21.
HunstonS (1995) A corpus study of some English verbs of attribution. Functions of Language2(2): 133–58.
22.
HunstonS (2000) Evaluation and the planes of discourse: status and value in persuasive texts. In: HunstonSThompsonG (eds) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 176–208.
23.
HunstonS (2011) Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. New York: Routledge.
24.
HylandK (1994) Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes13(3): 239–56.
25.
HylandK (1996) Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics17(4): 433–54.
26.
HylandK (1998) Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
27.
HylandK (1999) Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In: CandlinCNHylandK (eds) Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices. London: Longman, 99–122.
28.
HylandK (2000) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interaction in Academic Writing. Harlow: Longman.
29.
HylandK (2002) Activity and evaluation: reporting practices in academic writing. In: FlowerdewJ (ed.) Academic Discourse. Sydney: Pearson Education, 115–31.
30.
HylandK (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interactions in Writing. New York: Continuum.
31.
HylandKMiltonJ (1997) Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing6(2): 183–205.
32.
IntaraprawatPSteffensenMS (1995) The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing4: 253–72.
33.
JohnsAM (1995) Teaching classroom and authentic genres: initiating students into academic cultures and discourses. In: BelcherDBrianeG (eds) Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 277–93.
34.
LiTWhartonS (2012) Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 undergraduates writing in English: a cross-contextual, cross disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes11: 345–56.
35.
MarkkanenRSchroderH (1997) Hedging: a challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In: MarkkanenRSchroderH (eds) Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 3–17.
36.
MartinJRRoseD (2003) Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.
37.
MauranenA (1996) Discourse competence: evidence from thematic development in native and non-native texts. In: VentolaEMauranenA (eds) Academic Writing: Intertextual and Textual Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 195–230.
38.
McEneryTKifleNA (2002) Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. In: FlowerdewJ (ed.) Academic Discourse. London: Longman, 182–96.
39.
SinclairJM (1982) Planes of discourse. In: RizviSNA (ed.) The Twofold Voice: Essays in Honour of Ramesh Mohan. Saltzburg, University of Saltzburg, 70–89.
40.
StubbsM (1986) A matter of prolonged fieldwork: towards a modal grammar of English. Applied Linguistics7(1): 1–25.
41.
ThetelaP (1997) Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes16(2): 101–18.
42.
ThompsonGYeYY (1991) Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics12: 365–82.
43.
Vande KoppleWJ (1985) Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication36(1): 82–93.
44.
WeiZ (2004) Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing13 (1): 29–48.
WingateU (2012) ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes11: 145–54.
47.
WishnoffJR (2000) Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies19(1): 119–48.
48.
Woodward-KronR (2002) Critical analysis versus description? Examining the relationship in successful student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes1: 121–43.
49.
WuSM (2006) Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: investigating the strategy of problematisation in students’ argumentation. RELC Journal37(3): 329–53.
50.
YoungsCSYoungsGA (2001) Predictors of mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards ESL students. TESOL Quarterly35(1): 97–120.
